The 9th Circuit has fractured on a case pitting the attorney-client privilege against the Confrontation Clause, with a plurality finding that a defendant wasn't entitled to habeas relief even though his chief accuser at trial had previously exonerated him in a letter. Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote for the plurality, while Chief Judge Alex Kozinski penned a stinging dissent. Some of the harshest verbal combat between the two judges came over an unlikely topic: the legacy of Watergate jurist John Sirica.
June 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fractured on a case pitting the attorney-client privilege against the Confrontation Clause.
An en banc plurality found on Monday that Charles Murdoch wasn’t entitled to habeas relief — even though Murdoch’s chief accuser at trial, Dino Dinardo, had previously exonerated Murdoch in a letter Dinardo wrote to his own attorney.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
